Re: regex in list context

-MO=Deparse shows print "MATCHED\n" if @list = !('foo bar baz' =~ /\bbar\b/);, which explains your observation. Which I read as an implicit "cast" from scalar not to list context for the assignment, similar to @list=5 implying @list=(5).

(~~initially I thought about about =~ possibly being used in list context as well, but that's nonsensical~~).

I've problems imagining sensible semantics for an alternate implementation of list context (matching substrings) on a non-match operator like !~, so the current solution above seems sanest to me.

However man perlop could be more explicit: Binary "!~" is just like "=~" except the return value is negated in the logical sense. Elsewhere, same document: When there are no parentheses in the pattern, the return value is the list "(1)" for success. With or without parentheses, an empty list is returned upon failure.

cu & HTH, Peter -- hints may be untested unless stated otherwise; use with caution & understanding.

Comment on Re: regex in list context Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: regex in list context by kyle (Abbot) on Oct 28, 2009 at 14:55 UTC
I think this explains why I don't like using `!~`. Ages ago, it "didn't do what I expected" and I learned from this only "don't use `!~`". Time passed, and I forgot what I was trying to do that didn't work, but I was still avoiding `!~` in places it might have worked. I think this just might explain where my superstition came from. Thank you!	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: regex in list context by LanX (Saint) on Oct 29, 2009 at 00:17 UTC
Now that I see the answer I remember discussing this issue and IMHO it makes some sense. What kind of list should be the logical result of a doesn't-match operator? Anyway it breaks the believe in orthogonality and that doubling negations leads to the same results... ... which is indeed not exceptional in perl's "DWIM universe". So the OP should better use `unless` and `=~`. Cheers Rolf	[reply] [d/l] [select]